No such thing as a fair gerrymander

Former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, R-Calif speaks outside of the U.S. Supreme Court after an oral arguments in Gill v. Whitford to call for an end to partisan gerrymandering on Oct. 3.

Former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, R-Calif speaks outside of the...

The U.S. Supreme Court, in a Wisconsin case, is poised to make a historic ruling that could make extreme partisan gerrymandering unconstitutional.

Texas, whose maps historically are challenged because of racial gerrymandering, should nonetheless pay close attention. For all intents and purposes, racial and political gerrymandering are the same things in this state.

Legislators who get to pick their voters serve only what they value most — re-election and keeping the reins of power in the hands of their party.

Another question asked was whether there can be a standard courts can use to judge redistricting to have been a case of extreme political gerrymandering?

And the answer to that is that any partisan gerrymandering is extreme. Moreover, an acceptable standard is remarkably simple to reach to determine when this has occurred.

Its elements: Was partisan advantage the intent? Was partisan advantage the effect? And do the lines drawn defy such things as state geography? A lower court came up with this standard in this case.

Justice Stephen Breyer added a few other worthy considerations during the hearing. Is there one-party control of the state? (Looking at you, Texas). And, according to a New York Times account of the hearing, is a map drawn that creates a persistent and unjustified partisan advantage that is “an extreme outlier” compared to other maps?

Justice Anthony Kennedy reserved his tough questions for those defending a Wisconsin redistricting map that clearly gave partisan advantage to Republicans beyond their voter numbers in the state. This is an indication that he might be the fifth vote if the court splits 5-4 on the issue.

The state’s GOP map drawers used sophisticated software to “pack and crack” — packing voters likely to vote against them in other less numerous districts and others likely to vote for them in more districts. This involves cracking communities of interest and scattering them into districts to the advantage of Republicans.

The good news: The same kind of software tools can be used to achieve fair redistricting.

Texas should pay attention because, here, racial and political gerrymandering are virtually indistinguishable. Yes, the state’s GOP legislators draw the maps to keep Democrats from wielding too much power, but that also has the effect of denying fair representation to the state’s minority voters, who tend to vote Democratic. So, as courts have ruled, intentional discrimination occurred, a violation of the Voting Rights Act and the Constitution.

This case is headed to the Supreme Court. But the ruling we hope for in the Wisconsin case is likely to affect Texas in any case. Ideally, that ruling should be that partisan gerrymandering — extreme or not — always violates the equal protection clause in the Constitution.

This, we hope, will pave the way for independent redistricting commissions in Texas and throughout the country.